Currently, there is a heated debate on uniform civil code everywhere in the media, especially after the NDA government at the center took a stand against Triple Talaq at the Supreme Court. But then, the key question on whether there should be a Uniform Civil Code or not, political parties including the BJP and all opposition parties, are scuttling away with politically twisted answers. Even the so-called secular and rationalistic parties are painting uniform civil code as snatching away of rights of the minorities to follow their religion.
If they are rationalists and secularists opposed to religion and the role of religion in politics, should they not be the first ones to oppose any personal or social laws based on religious tenets? But they will not. With their flimsy rationalism, they may never oppose it, because they would lose their minority vote bank, which they developed over a period of time by way of political appeasement.
We all know that India is a secular democracy. It is neither a 'Hindu Rashtra' nor an 'Islamic Republic', or a 'Catholic state'. So, ideally, religions should not dictate terms on drafting the constitution. While as a secular nation, Indian constitution protects the rights of an individual to practice one's religion, if any religious practice infringes upon the rights of another person or causes hurt to another being, laws of justice should supersede the privilege to pursue a religious practice. Triple Talaq is one such practice. It clearly violates the rights of women. If we as a society argue in favor of equal rights for women in every aspect of life, how can we accept Triple Talaq as an acceptable social practice, merely because it is endorsed by religious tenets of Islam? Will those who argue in favor of it, extend the same rights to women to divorce their husbands with Triple Talaq or allow them to marry four men? They certainly will not.
Now this argument should not be confined to just some Islamic personal laws that are against the rights of women. All religious practices under any religion, enacted in the social sphere, should be brought under judicial scrutiny if they violate human rights or demonstrate cruelty. Everyone knows that even within Hinduism, practices such as Sati and Balya Vivaha (Child marriage), used to be rampant in the past. Hindu widows used to be banished to live a life of social isolation. Even today, if we go to places like Varanasi and Vrindavan, we can see socially isolated widows clad in white, living in ashrams and fending for themselves by seeking alms. Violation of human rights, even some apparent acts of cruelty are overlooked or justified by religions in the name of religious up-righteous behavior. Still, in many religions, self-infliction of pain and animal sacrifice are in vogue. All these have been going on for ages shielded by social and political laws. And if we really want to uproot them once and for all, we need to empower our constitutional laws with a uniform civil code to get into the protected territories of religions to fight civil injustice against all those who are gullible.
If on the other hand, religions have a perspective to justice, it can be debated upon and reasoned with, and if they are fit to be accepted as a universally applicable idea of social justice, amendments to the constitution can be considered in their favor. That is the only way, laws of religion can be considered within a secular framework of the constitution. But unfortunately, religions do not accept amendments. They want to remain as they were centuries back. It's not that constitution is flawless, but it is open to debates and amendments, which religious texts are not open to. That marks a clear difference between the two. As citizens of the country, we should know that if we want our country to be truly pluralistic and secular, we should vouch for a uniform civil code. It will go a long way in protecting the civil rights of all citizens from the undue influence of any religion.
If they are rationalists and secularists opposed to religion and the role of religion in politics, should they not be the first ones to oppose any personal or social laws based on religious tenets? But they will not. With their flimsy rationalism, they may never oppose it, because they would lose their minority vote bank, which they developed over a period of time by way of political appeasement.
We all know that India is a secular democracy. It is neither a 'Hindu Rashtra' nor an 'Islamic Republic', or a 'Catholic state'. So, ideally, religions should not dictate terms on drafting the constitution. While as a secular nation, Indian constitution protects the rights of an individual to practice one's religion, if any religious practice infringes upon the rights of another person or causes hurt to another being, laws of justice should supersede the privilege to pursue a religious practice. Triple Talaq is one such practice. It clearly violates the rights of women. If we as a society argue in favor of equal rights for women in every aspect of life, how can we accept Triple Talaq as an acceptable social practice, merely because it is endorsed by religious tenets of Islam? Will those who argue in favor of it, extend the same rights to women to divorce their husbands with Triple Talaq or allow them to marry four men? They certainly will not.
Now this argument should not be confined to just some Islamic personal laws that are against the rights of women. All religious practices under any religion, enacted in the social sphere, should be brought under judicial scrutiny if they violate human rights or demonstrate cruelty. Everyone knows that even within Hinduism, practices such as Sati and Balya Vivaha (Child marriage), used to be rampant in the past. Hindu widows used to be banished to live a life of social isolation. Even today, if we go to places like Varanasi and Vrindavan, we can see socially isolated widows clad in white, living in ashrams and fending for themselves by seeking alms. Violation of human rights, even some apparent acts of cruelty are overlooked or justified by religions in the name of religious up-righteous behavior. Still, in many religions, self-infliction of pain and animal sacrifice are in vogue. All these have been going on for ages shielded by social and political laws. And if we really want to uproot them once and for all, we need to empower our constitutional laws with a uniform civil code to get into the protected territories of religions to fight civil injustice against all those who are gullible.
If on the other hand, religions have a perspective to justice, it can be debated upon and reasoned with, and if they are fit to be accepted as a universally applicable idea of social justice, amendments to the constitution can be considered in their favor. That is the only way, laws of religion can be considered within a secular framework of the constitution. But unfortunately, religions do not accept amendments. They want to remain as they were centuries back. It's not that constitution is flawless, but it is open to debates and amendments, which religious texts are not open to. That marks a clear difference between the two. As citizens of the country, we should know that if we want our country to be truly pluralistic and secular, we should vouch for a uniform civil code. It will go a long way in protecting the civil rights of all citizens from the undue influence of any religion.